THE PCUSA PROPHET SAYS

How Dare They Call The Social Gospel a Heresy?

Rev. Dr. Paul Samson

Those who went to seminary during the "Social Gospel" period of Protestant intellectual excess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel saw the emerging concepts of the Social Gospel showing up in our denomination in the 1958 Statement – PC(USA), p. 537. Most of us believed that we were supporting the good causes of our time. Racial equality was the leading cause of the day. The Social Gospel seemed like a good idea back then, and was embraced with enthusiasm by liberal seminaries and main line clergy.

Since I was theologically and socially liberal, I began my career as a clergyman by seeking a Doctor of Ministry degree which required a “social gospel” project. I continued to serve in these kinds of projects for the next twenty years. I specialized in “urban ministry;” feeding the poor, working for justice, jail and prison ministries, pastoral psychotherapy, community organizing, campus chaplaincy, etc. Eventually, I was asked to teach an “Urban Ministries” curriculum at a noted seminary. A student came to me for counseling. After several therapy sessions the student said to me, "I came to a clergyman for counseling because I wanted to know about God. So far you haven't mentioned God". I was convicted of putting secular values above the Gospel.

While I was teaching I began to survey my career and examine what had been accomplished. I realized that for many years I had been fighting evil in the hope of establishing good. When I looked around I realized that there was just as much evil in the world as when I had begun my career, maybe more!

My results for a 20 year struggle were a big fat zero, perhaps even a negative impact on the people I had so enthusiastically wanted to help.

Unfortunately my denomination, PC(USA) had been experiencing the same dynamics. Did PC(USA) advance the Kingdom of Heaven by following the social gospel? Could PC(USA) point to any significant accomplishments? No! The negative effects of the social gospel on Presbyterians in general were even more pronounced than in my personal experience. PC(USA) now has less than half the members it had in the middle 1980s. The denomination is filled with strife and court cases involving churches who want to leave PC(USA) as a matter of conscience. Decisions made by the General Assembly were not the result of the will of elected representatives but were rather the result of the goals of secular activists, while the leadership of PC(USA) was complicit in that outcome.

So, just about the time I rejected the social gospel and began making the foundation of my ministry the traditional gospel, PC(USA) doubled down and increased their commitment to a latter day heresy.

A recent sermon covered the story about the beheading of John the Baptist as reported in the 14^th Chapter of Matthew. Imagine how John’s brutal death at the hands of a Roman puppet king would have affected the small community of the emerging followers of Jesus. Jesus’ response was to continue advancing the Kingdom of Heaven, rather than reacting to the worldly events. Mark reports, in Chapter 6, verse 34, that after John's beheading Jesus “saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.” Then he made sure they had something to eat.

Jesus knew to not react to the world, but that his mission was to first proactively advance the Kingdom of Heaven.

Had PC(USA) been around in those times we would have seen a much different response to the beheading of John the Baptist. The General Assembly would have issued a “strongly worded statement” disapproving of Roman rule of the Holy Land, and condemning Herod for the brutal murder of John. The PC(USA) feminists would have protested the exploitation of exotic dancers being used for political purposes. Many PC(USA) leaders would encourage and participate in protests against Herod, and in favor of John the Baptist. They would show up at these events soaking wet, to symbolically show their commitment to John the Baptist.

Is being opposed to tyranny a good thing? Yes. Is being opposed to brutal, unreasonable punishment a Christian obligation? Of course. Is pointing out the injustice of how exotic dancers are treated a good thing to do? Unquestionably. Is showing solidarity with others who are attempting to create a better world, a policy that deserves to be supported? Sure.

Do any of these things advance the Kingdom of Heaven? No.

Keep in mind that it was not the feeding of the five thousand that advanced the Kingdom. It wasn't the hunger of the belly that gave rise to Jesus’ compassion. “He was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.” Then he turned his attention to their physical hunger.

Now, I have no way of knowing if my speculation is correct. These fictional ancient Presbyterians may have found other ways to react to the world. But, it is a sure bet that none of the PC(USA) leadership would have been at the lakeside addressing the spiritual hunger of five thousand people by sharing the traditional gospel message. They would have been at the temple busily protesting injustice.

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matt 6:33

Since I remain a liberal theologian I intend the next sentence symbolically. Two generations of Presbyterians have been conned by Satan into “seeking all these things first” rather than “First seeking the Kingdom of God.”

The social gospel is a heresy because it causes Christians to react to the world first, rather than advancing the Kingdom of Heaven. Those worldly (secular) concerns are legitimate, but they are a distant second place to the traditional gospel.

SEE: